4.5 Article

HYPERPOLARIZATION-ACTIVATED, CYCLIC NUCLEOTIDE-GATED, CATION NON-SELECTIVE CHANNEL SUBUNIT EXPRESSION PATTERN OF GUINEA-PIG SPIRAL GANGLION CELLS

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 158, 期 4, 页码 1469-1477

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.10.056

关键词

cochlear free-floating preparation; confocal analysis; wax-embedded preparation; apico-basal gradient

资金

  1. Hungarian Scientific Research Fund [OTKA K-72812, NK-61412]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the hyperpolarization-activated non-specific cationic current (I-h) plays important roles in determining the membrane characteristics of the spiral ganglion cells (SGCs), neither the exact types of the hyperpolarization-activated, cyclic nucleotide-gated, cation non-selective channel (HCN) subunits contributing to the molecular assembly of the relevant channels, nor their distribution pattern presented by the SGCs is known. In the present work immunolabeling and Western blot analysis were performed to describe the presence and distribution of all four known HCN subunits in the guinea-pig spiral ganglion. Besides determining the expression of the HCN1-HCN4 subunits by both type I and type 11 SGCs, the presence of possible apico-basal gradients in the expression patterns was also sought. The results indicate that both type I and type 11 SGCs express all four HCN subunits. The intensity of the Immunolabeling of the cell surface membrane was generally strong, but it showed pronounced cell-to-cell variability. The Western blot experiments in combination with densitometry revealed that the amount of the HCN1 and HCN3 proteins was more significant in the apical than in the basal third of the guinea-pig cochlea. These findings not only Imply potential heteromeric HCN channel formation of the spiral ganglion neurons, but they also offer a possible explanation of the previously reported heterogeneity Of I-h recorded In functional studies. (C) 2009 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据